Scientific knowledge as a projection of Spiritual Knowledge

[auh]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear auh,

I feel we may wait for Shri Sravna to come out with his whole proposition. (I wanted to send a pm to you but it seems you have disabled pms. Will you kindly send a pm to me giving your e-mail id?)

I think it is awaiting some activation (I cannot even access my inbox). I also don't see any direct link to pms?

 

[auh]

Very well said Shri.Sravna,
Let us exchange our ideas to the best of our ability without wasting our time. As you said, in such heavy topics its not easy to use the most appropriate terminology instantly by few of us who are not retired at home. As long as we could convey and understand the gist of the past that should be fine.

More over Shri.Sravna, the healthy exchange of ideas are only possible among the people who are willing to grasp the gist of posts on such heavy & deep subjects. Let us continue among the interested parties who all can respect each others contribution in their efforts to understand and elaborate the topic, sparing their time and energy. Let us not get carried away by useless distractions.

Very well said SIR, it is very difficult to grasp such heavy & deep subjects.

 

[auh]

Dear Doc, The first statement alone is not the proof. The whole argument constitutes the proof. The method employed by Sravna in this case is a well known method known as Reductio-ad-absurdum. Please refer: Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The method requires some agreed on basis on which premises and conclusions are derived upon.

Let me take the example given in wikipedia itself:

Rocks have weight, otherwise we would see them floating in the air.

Here we know rocks, we know what weight means, and air obviously represents our earth (in places where gravity is less, even weighty objects could perhaps float).

Sravna uses terms like spiritual reality, definite time, reaching to a finite point, etc, etc, which should be explained. All these may make sense inside his head, but to put them as a cogent argument, is what is required now.

 

[auh]

It is the time from where it reached the present is not necessary since if present is reached the time
elapsed has to be definite. but the other fact that past extends infinitely backwards contradicts this. so both cannot be true at the same time. Thus the assumption is false.

Why do you use the term reach? You have, obviously, assumed that something has started, at a definite point in time and hence you are stuck up with the logic. I will split the above sentence so that my query is easy for you to understand:


1) It is the time - the "it" here refers to the time, but you are bracketing time here as definite
2) from where it reached the present - What does "it" refer to here? And why does "it" travel to reach?
3) is not necessary - this, I am assuming refers to the "it"

You have assumed that something has started and hence you claim that time is definite. But the argument does not hold water.

If you read my argument clearly, I would have concluded that space and time emerged out of spiritual reality. I have also mentioned the requirements of spiritual reality.

I will go through again to find out what you mean by spiritual reality.

With this post I would refrain from further posting until you have completed your theory and proof.

 

[sravna]

Why do you use the term reach? You have, obviously, assumed that something has started, at a definite point in time and hence you are stuck up with the logic. I will split the above sentence so that my query is easy for you to understand:


1) It is the time - the "it" here refers to the time, but you are bracketing time here as definite
2) from where it reached the present - What does "it" refer to here? And why does "it" travel to reach?
3) is not necessary - this, I am assuming refers to the "it"

You have assumed that something has started and hence you claim that time is definite. But the argument does not hold water.

I will go through again to find out what you mean by spiritual reality.

With this post I would refrain from further posting until you have completed your theory and proof.

Dear Shri Auh,

You are needlessly complicating things and frequently getting bogged down in details.

Here is the gist:

Assumption : Past stretches infinitely backwards
Conclusion: Present is reached

From the assumption, time elapsed to reach the present cannot be finite because time is endless in the backward direction.
From the conclusion, time elapsed to reach the present has to be finite because time ends at a definite point in the forward direction.

The conclusion contradicts the assumption and therefore the assumption is false

 

[C RAVI]

Dear Shri Auh,

You are needlessly complicating things and frequently getting bogged down in understanding the semantics.

Here is the gist:

Assumption : Past stretches infinitely backwards
Conclusion: Present is reached

From the assumption, time elapsed to reach the present cannot be finite because time is endless in the backward direction.
From the conclusion, time elapsed to reach the present has to be finite because time ends at a definite point in the forward direction.

The conclusion contradicts the assumption and therefore the assumption is false

Shri Sravna,

Your above explanation is clear to me.

So, when the assumption - "Past stretches infinitely backwards" is found to be false. do you mean to say that - There is a point of time when the whole physical reality came into existence and that we, in this physically relative reality, with our time scale, just could not measure the start point and falsely assuming the past to be infinite?

Am I right with what you are coming to say? Or am I missing something?

 

[sravna]

Dear Ravi,

I am trying to prove that past cannot stretch infinitely back. I am saying that if we assume past stretches infinitely then we could not have reached the present. For the sake of argument I am assuming that past stretches infinitely and prove it to be false. So I arrive at the conclusion that past need to have started at a definite point.

 

[renuka]

There is a point of time when the whole physical reality came into existence and that we, in this physically relative reality, with our time scale, just could not measure the start point and falsely assuming the past to be infinite?

Am I right with what you are coming to say? Or am I missing something?

See its so easy...just lean on Advaita...Brahman Satyam Jagat Mithya...so no need to think too hard about when things started...how it started..falsely assuming etc...what difference does it make how and when everything started if it is Mithya ultimately??


God kept things easy yaar...that is why He is God!

 

[praveen]

I think it is awaiting some activation (I cannot even access my inbox). I also don't see any direct link to pms?

That is quite strange. Can you please try to access this url www.tamilbrahmins.com/private.php

Nothing on your account is blocked or limited.. All are fine from what i see.

 

[praveen]

Can you please try now?

I think i might have fixed it.

 

[auh]

Yes, I am able to, now.

Thanks Praveen.

 

[prasad1]

Dear Ravi,

I am trying to prove that past cannot stretch infinitely back. I am saying that if we assume past stretches infinitely then we could not have reached the present. For the sake of argument I am assuming that past stretches infinitely and prove it to be false. So I arrive at the conclusion that past need to have started at a definite point.

Going back to your theory of Advaita, There was nothing there in the beginning, and then it happened. It is God's leela. We with our limited understanding can not decipher that mystery.

So everything other than Brahmam had a beginning. Every thing that had a beginning will have an end.
So time too had a beginning. For human purpose the concept of infinity assumes beginning less and end less, but that is only for for understanding of the physical reality.

 

[C RAVI]

Dear Ravi,

I am trying to prove that past cannot stretch infinitely back. I am saying that if we assume past stretches infinitely then we could not have reached the present. For the sake of argument I am assuming that past stretches infinitely and prove it to be false. So I arrive at the conclusion that past need to have started at a definite point.

Yes!!!

I got it right what you are conveying

 

[C RAVI]

Shri Sravna,


Now, since we (you, me and probably few others) could some how agree with the point that "The past of this physical reality have started at a definite point", I would like you to come up with your further posts, elaborating your points on linking the "Spiritual Reality" with the "Scientific endeavors', in line with your point no. 4 in your post no.84 -

4. Knowledge that already exists as synthesized needs to be analysed in the physical reality

 

[renuka]

. So I arrive at the conclusion that past need to have started at a definite point.

Dear Sravna,

Just as Sangom ji said..everything besides Brahman had a beginning and will have an end...but that I would like to add is at a physical level where we have a beginning and an end..not at an Atmic level.

But if we go one step further and identify ourselves as part and parcel of Brahman in the famous Eko'ham Bahushyam..that would mean that technically everything was unborn as in without a beginning.

So from the Advaitic point of view..everything at the Atmic level is without a beginning.

So how would you want to view the universe now???

As with a beginning or without a beginning??

If you say that it has a beginning that means you are only looking at the physical aspect of the universe where it is seen as a separate entity from Brahman.

If you feel that it is a Projection from Brahman than even though it appears to have a beginning ..in reality it is without a beginning like Brahman...hence the Brahman Sathyam Jagat Mithya...cos what looked like apparently created was merely a transient ever changing projection which was in reality without a beginning.

So you can assume that the Projected Universe to be representing the Physical plane which we decipher with the help of Science(Scientific Knowledge) ..which has its "without a beginning" mode in Brahman itself which you might want to translate as the Spiritual Knowledge.

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

Well analysed.

But if according to advaita everything other than brahman is only relatively real don't you think the problem is resolved. So if universe is only relatively real that it had a beginning is only in our perspective.

But definitely you are making a good point.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

Well analysed.

But if according to advaita everything other than brahman is only relatively real don't you think the problem is resolved. So if universe is only relatively real that it had a beginning is only in our perspective.

Yes! That is my point...so this apparent beginning is actually in reality without a beginning.

To make an imprint in our mind for a thought process to be initiated we need a starting point just like how we think that the sun rises and sets in order for us to calculate time(when in reality the sun neither rises nor sets)

So everything is just relatively speaking..be it the Universe or Time.

That is why we have terms like Jagatathita(transcended the Universe) and Kalaathita(transcended Time)

 

[sravna]

I will first prove premise 5 and then come to the previous premises

Premise 5: Facts that are both universal and timeless are not directly verifiable but can only be inferred when physically verifiable facts are falsified.

I will first prove that facts that are both universal and timeless are not verifiable by a physical detector.

Proof

Fact: Something in space and time can be detected by a physical detector when what is detected changes in energy.
Premise 51: Spiritual energy is characterized by a constant energy in space and time. This is according to premise 1.

Conclusion : Since facts that are both universal and timeless are spiritual in nature they are not verifiable by a physical detector.

 

[sangom]

Dear Renuka,

Well analysed.

But if according to advaita everything other than brahman is only relatively real don't you think the problem is resolved. So if universe is only relatively real that it had a beginning is only in our perspective.

But definitely you are making a good point.

This world and/or this universe appear/s to we, humans, with our given perceptive and intellectual abilities in a particular way and this is common to all normal human beings. But at the level of each individual human being, this whole "jagat" disappears or ends the moment death sets in.

The argument that the world/universe has continued to exist despite infinite numbers of human beings (living &) dying on this planet earth, does not change the truth (fact) that for each one of us this vision or mirage ends at death. That is why it is unreal or relatively only real.

We are now trying to discuss the set of laws and rules which govern this jagat in its appearance to us in a particularly conditioned way, by bringing in concepts like space and time, and energy also perhaps; added to the mixture is something called "spiritual" also. Thus it is a hotch-potch of many dissimilar or unknown components.

This jagat will appear in a particular way, governed as though by certain sets of laws or rules, to the humans. (May be, for example, dogs, cats, lions, snakes, etc., this jagat will appear differently.) What humans can and should strive to do is to unravel the laws/rules, yoke the forces of nature to the eclectic good of humanity and strictly avoid using that knowledge/ability for destruction of humanity and/or this planetary experiment of nature itself.

Spiritual is something we are not clear about at all, except the imbibable varieties Why embark on such a mission?

 

[sravna]

Premise 5(ii): Facts that are both universal and timeless can only be inferred when physically verifiable facts are falsified

Proof

Fact : From premise 1, facts that are both universal and timeless exist
Fact : From premise 1, only two types of facts exist being facts that are universal only and facts that are both universal and timeless
Fact: From premise 5: Facts that are both universal and timeless cannot be directly verified
Premise 51(ii): Physically verifiable facts are falsified

Conclusion: Physically verifiable facts are falsified by the universal and timeless facts and so the latter can only be inferred

 

[auh]

Since I do not belong to the "league of extraordinary gentlemen", I will not participate now but will await my time until Sravna finishes, but by then, I think, I would have lost track of the so many premises, facts, inferences and conclusions !

 

[sravna]

It seems that all the premises need not be proved to arrive at my final conclusion that scientific knowledge has a deeper spiritual basis. I think the conclusion follows from what has already been proved

I now request the members to share their views

 

[C RAVI]

Since I do not belong to the "league of extraordinary gentlemen", I will not participate now but will await my time until Sravna finishes, but by then, I think, I would have lost track of the so many premises, facts, inferences and conclusions !

This post itself becomes irrelevant, then!!

 

[auh]

This post itself becomes irrelevant, then!!

Is that a logical conclusion or a conclusion by logic?

 

[auh]

All these seem full of premises, and conclusions, none of which are logical. It is not enough to simply put something as a premise and then draw a conclusion as if it is the only valid and logical derivative.

As an example you say

Premise 1: A fact may be only universal in scope or both universal and timeless in scope

Logical Proof of Premise 1
Premise 11: The universe i.e., space, time , energy and matter had a beginning.
Proof: Assume there is a beginningless past and assume that the present may be reached. Then you have to conclude that the time span of the past is finite. You have to conclude this because a definite period of time has elapsed. But the fact is past has no beginning or it goes infinitely backwards and thus the time span of the past cannot be finite. So the assumption that present can be reached cannot be true and the hypothesis that the universe had no beginning is false.

Premise 13: Physical reality emerged from the spiritual reality and is a relative reality, based on premises 11 and 12
Conclusion 1: Facts based on the physical reality are relatively real i.e., they can be falsified by the higher reality and hence not timeless.
Conclusion 2: Facts based on the spiritual reality are absolutely indisputable i.e., they are universal and timeless.

The basic fallacy is that somehow time is taken to be finite (is there a proof for this in physics or whatever?) and thus by disproving that time is infinite you arrive at the conclusion that the world has a beginning. My query is - Why should time have a finite time frame when we dont know about what existed before? Big bang theories are not proven facts and you cannot take it as conclusive proofs. It is therefore mere speculation and hence cannot be logical.

Another fallacy is that space seems to have been emerged or created. We cannot comprehend this, and what cannot be comprehended, cannot be fit in a logic. The logical question, if we were to accept this statement, would then be, what existed before space emerged? It there wasn't anything then it would seem that space emerged out of nothing, which is a contradiction by itself, but if there was something (call it by any name), where did it reside? This is again another contradiction, because there is no space for it , you see.

I cannot proceed to analyse further with what seems to be an erroneous logic. Or perhaps I need to be in the spiritual reality to comprehend this.